Can conservatives explain to me why the individual mandate is unconstitutional but...

[her209]

There's a big difference between the government mandating you to spend your money, and mandating you to put it away.

Because we all know those fund managers work for free.

 

[classy]

Clumsy effort-you didn't even attempt to answer the question.

LOL

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Because we all know those fund managers work for free.

What part of voluntary or "option" do you not understand?

 

[her209]

What part of voluntary or "option" do you not understand?

What part of "the government mandating you to spend your money, and mandating you to put it away." don't you understand?

 

[cybrsage]

Mandate, tax, who cares? Is it reasonable? YES.

It is only reasonable to those who think the Constitution is unreasonable.

Start striking down 100's of unconstitutional laws, SCOTUS, then get back to me. Maybe then you'll have earned some kind of equity to justify striking down a law that took 60 senate votes and a year of debate.

They can only rule on items brought before them in a lawsuit. You want them to rule on a specific thing? Bring forth a lawsuit.

ONE JUSTICE should not have that much power.

One justice does NOT have that much power. It takes nine of them (less with possible recusions).

 

[theeedude]

What if its upheld. Will rightwingers accept that its Constitutional?

 

[cybrsage]

What if its upheld. Will rightwingers accept that its Constitutional?

At that point, we will have to choice but to accept it as consittutional. Like it? No. Think they got it wrong? Yes. I point to using the right to privacy as the reason why a mother can kill her unborn child as also getting it wrong...but I have to accept it is contitutional (until a new cout overturns it sometime in the future when we grow past our current barbarian status).

 

[CADsortaGUY]

What part of "the government mandating you to spend your money, and mandating you to put it away." don't you understand?

Uh, the FACT is the SS private account was OPTIONAL and gave something to the individual. BHOcare takes away the choice from the individual by MANDATE. Please try to keep up.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

What if its upheld. Will rightwingers accept that its Constitutional?

No, it's clearly not to anyone who paid attention in a simple gov't history class in highschool. The Constitution is a cage. It was intended to be a cage and was a cage for many years until the politicos started dancing around it and people started ignoring it because they wanted more "free" stuff from the gov't. If the court doesn't rule against it this time doesn't mean it's Constitutional anyway - it just means the current argument against it doesn't work. God help us if they rule this case in favor of BHOcare - it opens the door to any and all controls on the population.

 

[TheBlackRabbit]

It is only reasonable to those who think the Constitution is unreasonable.

PLEASE...Drug War, erosion of almost all 4th amendment rights, etc. I don't feel like making a list right now.

Apparently most of the country, MAINLY right-wing conservatives (but in reality nearly everyone in the country), feel the constitution is unreasonable.

 

[cybrsage]

PLEASE...Drug War, erosion of almost all 4th amendment rights, etc. I don't feel like making a list right now.

Apparently most of the country, MAINLY right-wing conservatives (but in reality nearly everyone in the country), feel the constitution is unreasonable.

Random words strung together into nothing is not proof of anything. Go ahead and create a thread where you actually detail this information.

 

[hal2kilo]

Except it isn't mandatory - it was offered as an option for people wanting to have some stake in their SS dollars.

And yes you are forced to, under penalty of law to comply with BHOcare.

I bet you don't know what the penalty is for not paying the fine.

 

[cybrsage]

So are we all in agreement that Social Security is a tax, and therefor is different from a fine?

 

[Atreus21]

There are times when I feel bad for Administrator Idontcare.

 

[a777pilot]

... mandatory private savings accounts (in order to replace social security) that conservatives champion are somehow constitutionally kosher?

That would make a good and valid point if that is what the replacement program was like.

I understand the program as being a choice between what we have now, the current SS system OR a voluntary program of personal investment, government administrated like the program set up in Chile.

Social Security is a tax on those that work with the goal of ensuring a retirement. This is NOT the same as forcing the citizens to buy a private product.

We shall see what happens by the end of June. This could be very interesting and in my opinion irrelevant. BoboCare is here to stay no matter what the Supreme court says. That is truly sad.

 

[a777pilot]

There are times when I feel bad for Administrator Idontcare.

Why?

I don't care.

 

[JockoJohnson]

Can we please stop pretending the SCOTUS is anything more than another legislative branch of government that arbitrarily either "approves" of laws or "disapproves" based primarily on political ideology?

How many laws could we name that should have been struck down immediately but weren't and vice versa? Maybe at one point in time it was a court, but not anytime since any of us have been alive.

If the SCOTUS functioned as a court that actually considered constitutionality 100% of the time, then fine, but it picks and chooses.

Mandate, tax, who cares? Is it reasonable? YES.

Start striking down 100's of unconstitutional laws, SCOTUS, then get back to me. Maybe then you'll have earned some kind of equity to justify striking down a law that took 60 senate votes and a year of debate.

ONE JUSTICE should not have that much power.

The reason that we can't do that is because Common Sense is not allowed to be in gov't. Everything must be written exact--no subjective interpretation. I would be fine if the mandate was a tax instead of having to pay it or get fined. There is a difference as others have mentioned. But all the politicians were worried it would be seen as raising taxes and then that promise would be broken and they might not get re-elected.

I know it has been said before and we will be long gone from this planet before it happens but we need to stop electing career politicians who are in it only for themselves.

 

[HomerJS]

This mandate is no different the that sacred founding father George Washington mandating people buy muskets and bayonets.

 

[ElFenix]

If the SCOTUS functioned as a court that actually considered constitutionality 100% of the time, then fine, but it picks and chooses.

the Court decides a lot more things than just constitutional issues. and it isn't supposed to decide questions that aren't present before it.

learn how the Court works and what it does.

 

[ky54]

The private part of SS is OPTIONAL under every single plan I have seen so trying to compare it to mandated health insurance is specious at best. Somehow I doubt it will sink in to those whose blind hatred of anything outside their very narrow political view will allow.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I bet you don't know what the penalty is for not paying the fine.

My understanding is that it is similar to the penalty for not paying taxes because the "fine" is administrated by the IRS.

So is there a point to your question?

 

[hal2kilo]

My understanding is that it is similar to the penalty for not paying taxes because the "fine" is administrated by the IRS.

So is there a point to your question?

There is no enforcement mechanism in the law. So basically, nothing happens.

 

[TheBlackRabbit]

Random words strung together into nothing is not proof of anything. Go ahead and create a thread where you actually detail this information.

How is allowing police dogs to circle cars at traffic lights sniffing for drugs not an unreasonable search?

Go ahead and tell me and then I'll make my list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_v._Caballes

Justice Ginsburg, "Under today's decision, every traffic stop could become an occasion to call in the dogs, to the distress and embarrassment of the law-abiding population.... Today's decision clears the way for suspicionless, dog-accompanied drug sweeps of parked cars along sidewalks and in parking lots.... Motorists [would not] have constitutional grounds for complaint should police with dogs, stationed at long traffic lights, circle cars waiting for the red signal to turn green.""

Oh and I'll be adding this one later this year I am sure:

http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuter...ourt_to_decide_drug-detecting_dog_sniff_case/

If you are going to argue that this isn't relevant, BS. The subject is not drug dogs VS. Obamacare. It is Constitutional Vs. Unconstitutional

 

[CADsortaGUY]

There is no enforcement mechanism in the law. So basically, nothing happens.

Yeah, I guess the IRS doesn't go after people...

 

[a777pilot]

There is no enforcement mechanism in the law. So basically, nothing happens.

Then what are those extra 16,000 IRS agents for that are included in this soon to be unConstitutional law?